‘23 GA S Jack Luttrell (Tennessee transfer)

[Vol8188]

Stars are not perfect, but if half of your roster or more are highly rated, you stand a better chance at winning a natty. The 4/5 stars push the 3 stars in practice.

The fact is, in the past 10 years, only 2 teams with less than 50% of their roster being made up of 5 and 4 stars have made the playoffs. Cincinnati last year, and TCU this year. They both came out of weak conferences, where they did not have to play more talented teams every week.

Cincy could only muster 2 field goals vs bama, we will see how tcu does in a few days, but I think they are outmatched vs Michigan.

Just to be clear, our class this year is 50/50. Stack a few of those together, get rid of some dead weight, and fill with portal kids, and we are on the right path.

With this current class, we should be on that graphic for 2023!

Agreed. 100%. Not sure I understand the reason so many on here bash recruiting rankings. Talent matters. We need more talent to win consistently. I’ve said it multiple times but one reason we lost to SC is because we had almost even talent with them. When you have a massive recruiting advantage over a team you can play your worse and still win (Georgia vs Missouri for example). We aren’t there yet but are closing the gap

 

[VolFreakJosh]

Agreed. 100%. Not sure I understand the reason so many on here bash recruiting rankings. Talent matters. We need more talent to win consistently. I’ve said it multiple times but one reason we lost to SC is because we had almost even talent with them. When you have a massive recruiting advantage over a team you can play your worse and still win (Georgia vs Missouri for example). We aren’t there yet but are closing the gap

So what was Bama’s excuse for losing then?

 

[Vol8188]

So what was Bama’s excuse for losing then?

The first thing you should do is define losing. Bama was a top ten team right? Elite recruiting is part of the equation only. It’s a massive part, but only part.

Bama has been an absolute dynasty. They’re such a dynasty that they’re going to finish in the top ten and by their standards you’re defining it as “losing”. And their dynasty has been built by recruiting at a level we’ve never seen before.

 

[volbeast33]

Agreed. 100%. Not sure I understand the reason so many on here bash recruiting rankings. Talent matters. We need more talent to win consistently. I’ve said it multiple times but one reason we lost to SC is because we had almost even talent with them. When you have a massive recruiting advantage over a team you can play your worse and still win (Georgia vs Missouri for example). We aren’t there yet but are closing the gap

Clemson had a huge talent advantage and lost to South Carolina at home. I think recruiting talent definitely matters….. The good teams evaluate and develop good talent….. we need to get a few studs…. The majority of the rest be solid football players with very few misses… in a few years, our rankings will start matching Georgia and Alabama.

 

[sjt18]

As usual you are wrong. I never said that and you know it. Maybe you need some reminding of the facts

View attachment 526060

Your "facts" actually prove you wrong. Only 3 of the 15 teams listed there won their conference. Outside of programs that have a recent track record of high success (Bama, OSU, UGA, and Clemson)... the combined record of the rest is 71-51- 58%. The "FACT" is that record is not dominating. Five of those 15 teams don't even have winning records right now. OU and A&M who according to your omniscient recruiting sites have top 5 talent... have a combined 11-13 record this year.... and OU plays in the weakest P-5 conference.

Two of the CFP teams have top 5 talent according that graph... but two do not. Even Michigan by that graph is 20% less talented than OSU (who they absolutely dominated in Columbus) and 30% less talented than Bama who did not make the CFP and never really looked like a CFP worthy team.

"As usual YOU are wrong".

 

[Vol8188]

Clemson had a huge talent advantage and lost to South Carolina at home. I think recruiting talent definitely matters….. The good teams evaluate and develop good talent….. we need to get a few studs…. The majority of the rest be solid football players with very few misses… in a few years, our rankings will start matching Georgia and Alabama.

Sure, Clemson lost. Clemson had a better roster for sure, but not all positions are equally important. SC had better DBs, QB, and WRs which are the 3 most important positions in todays game

We saw a battle of two five star QBs and one was a bust. Busts happen no matter who is evaluating (coaches, 247, Rivals, random VN members watching highlights, etc).

When your QB has under 100 yards passing you’re going to lose a lot of games.

 

[B81]

Your "facts" actually prove you wrong. Only 3 of the 15 teams listed there won their conference. Outside of programs that have a recent track record of high success (Bama, OSU, UGA, and Clemson)... the combined record of the rest is 71-51- 58%. The "FACT" is that record is not dominating. Five of those 15 teams don't even have winning records right now. OU and A&M who according to your omniscient recruiting sites have top 5 talent... have a combined 11-13 record this year.... and OU plays in the weakest P-5 conference.

Two of the CFP teams have top 5 talent according that graph... but two do not. Even Michigan by that graph is 20% less talented than OSU (who they absolutely dominated in Columbus) and 30% less talented than Bama who did not make the CFP and never really looked like a CFP worthy team.

"As usual YOU are wrong".

Only 3….. so 3 of the power 5. Not to mention that most of the 15 are in 2 conferences.

 

[Vol8188]

Only 3….. so 3 of the power 5. Not to mention that most of the 15 are in 2 conferences.

And then the chart referenced doesn’t include attrition (something Oklahoma suffered a lot of). So you can’t simply look at who had the best classes due to the transfer portal. Instead you have to look at current roster talent which wouldn’t have them top 5

 

[Vol8188]

Your "facts" actually prove you wrong. Only 3 of the 15 teams listed there won their conference. Outside of programs that have a recent track record of high success (Bama, OSU, UGA, and Clemson)... the combined record of the rest is 71-51- 58%. The "FACT" is that record is not dominating. Five of those 15 teams don't even have winning records right now. OU and A&M who according to your omniscient recruiting sites have top 5 talent... have a combined 11-13 record this year.... and OU plays in the weakest P-5 conference.

Two of the CFP teams have top 5 talent according that graph... but two do not. Even Michigan by that graph is 20% less talented than OSU (who they absolutely dominated in Columbus) and 30% less talented than Bama who did not make the CFP and never really looked like a CFP worthy team.

"As usual YOU are wrong".

So to be clear you don’t believe Georgia and Bama have created elite teams through their recruiting prowess?

 

[Weezer]

So to be clear you don’t believe Georgia and Bama have created elite teams through their recruiting prowess?

If by "prowess" you mean unchecked cheating.......

 

[butchna]

So to be clear you don’t believe Georgia and Bama have created elite teams through their recruiting prowess?

Obviously. But are you crediting THE SERVICES for said recruiting prowess?

 

[Vol8188]

If by "prowess" you mean unchecked cheating.......

I don’t really care about any of the allegations. The point is if you look at composite rankings, they’ve dominated. If you look on the field, they’ve dominated.

If you look at the odds of being drafted, 5*s dominate, 4*s are next, then 3*s. The evidence is clear that the system works

 

[Vol8188]

Obviously. But are you crediting THE SERVICES for said recruiting prowess?

Lol no. I’m not claiming they scout based on any service but rather than both arrived at the same point independently.

So it seems the services know what they’re doing

 

[volinokc]

It’s only fitting that this thread has turned into this argument. Can’t wait to see the kid kill it at UT!

 

[Ron Swanson]

Agreed. 100%. Not sure I understand the reason so many on here bash recruiting rankings. Talent matters. We need more talent to win consistently. I’ve said it multiple times but one reason we lost to SC is because we had almost even talent with them. When you have a massive recruiting advantage over a team you can play your worse and still win (Georgia vs Missouri for example). We aren’t there yet but are closing the gap

Talent definitely matters, no question about it. But coaching matters even more. Anyone that has watched Clemson and UT games this year has seen both sides of that coin. UT has overachieved and Clemson has underachieved, both due to coaching.

 

[Vol8188]

Talent definitely matters, no question about it. But coaching matters even more. Anyone that has watched Clemson and UT games this year has seen both sides of that coin. UT has overachieved and Clemson has underachieved, both due to coaching.

I don’t 100% disagree with that. In our case a lot of it was coaching that got us to elite level qb play. But I’d slightly amend your statement to say “QB play” is what cost Clemson.

That’s my only issue with recruiting rankings is they (ON3 excluded) fail to include positional value. No position matters more than QB which can create a serious issue when you only have about 3 on your roster

 

[sjt18]

If the recruiting sites existed or not has nothing to do with the conversation. Some teams would have more talent and some would have less with or without the services.

Which... was the EXACT point I was making. People like BOT would have you believe that the recruiting rankings are a "leading indicator". They aren't. They are a trailing indicator and not a very accurate one at that.

No one has ever claimed that talent is the entire equation (Jimbo proved that this year). But you have to have the talent. You won’t win consistently at a high level without it

And pointing back to your accurate comment above... has nothing to do with whether the recruiting sites bless a roster with bunches of blue chip ratings.

Sometimes it is coaching and there's no arguing that Jimbo badly underperformed his talent... or that he doesn't have somewhat of a pattern of doing the same. OTOH, several of his "blue chips" just absolutely didn't look like it just from a pure talent standpoint.

UT fans have experienced this probably as much or more than anyone. Just a couple of examples to jog your memory. There was no point when Lennon Creer looked like a 4* RB. He was slow, not very quick, not powerful... he just wasn't very talented. UT got him and Denarius Moore as the add on.

Here are the 4/5* guys Jones signed with the overrated guys or outright busts in bold (I'll be generous). No one should have to tell UT fans that "success" on NSD doesn't mean you'll have a talented roster:

Marquez North
Josh Dobbs
Jason Carr
Jalen Reeves-Maybin
Josh Malone
Jalen Hurd
Todd Kelly
Dillon Bates
Dewayne Hendrix
Derrell Scott
Von Pearson
Cortez McDowell
Daniel Helm
Derek Barnett
Dontavious Blair
D'Andre Paine
Chris Wetherd
Evan Berry
Charles Mosley
Kahlil McKenzie
Kyle Phillips
Alvin Kamara
Preston Williams
Shy Tuttle
Drew Richmond
Jack Jones
Darrin Kirkland
Jauan Jennings
Quart'e Sapp
Micah Abernathy
Sheriron Jones
Justin Martin
Andrew Butcher
Quinton Dormady
Darrell Taylor
Nigel Warrior
Jarrett Guarantano
Jonathan Kongbo
Tyler Byrd
Marquez Calloway
Marquill Osborne
Daniel Bituli
Ryan Johnson
Carlin Fils-Aime
Alexis Johnson
Trey Smith
Ty Chandler
Maleik Gray
Eric Crosby
Will Ignont

 

[Vol8188]

Which... was the EXACT point I was making. People like BOT would have you believe that the recruiting rankings are a "leading indicator". They aren't. They are a trailing indicator and not a very accurate one at that.

And pointing back to your accurate comment above... has nothing to do with whether the recruiting sites bless a roster with bunches of blue chip ratings.

Sometimes it is coaching and there's no arguing that Jimbo badly underperformed his talent... or that he doesn't have somewhat of a pattern of doing the same. OTOH, several of his "blue chips" just absolutely didn't look like it just from a pure talent standpoint.

UT fans have experienced this probably as much or more than anyone. Just a couple of examples to jog your memory. There was no point when Lennon Creer looked like a 4* RB. He was slow, not very quick, not powerful... he just wasn't very talented. UT got him and Denarius Moore as the add on.

Here are the 4/5* guys Jones signed with the overrated guys or outright busts in bold (I'll be generous). No one should have to tell UT fans that "success" on NSD doesn't mean you'll have a talented roster:

Marquez North
Josh Dobbs
Jason Carr
Jalen Reeves-Maybin
Josh Malone
Jalen Hurd
Todd Kelly
Dillon Bates
Dewayne Hendrix
Derrell Scott
Von Pearson
Cortez McDowell
Daniel Helm
Derek Barnett
Dontavious Blair
D'Andre Paine
Chris Wetherd
Evan Berry
Charles Mosley
Kahlil McKenzie
Kyle Phillips
Alvin Kamara
Preston Williams
Shy Tuttle
Drew Richmond
Jack Jones
Darrin Kirkland
Jauan Jennings
Quart'e Sapp
Micah Abernathy
Sheriron Jones
Justin Martin
Andrew Butcher
Quinton Dormady
Darrell Taylor
Nigel Warrior
Jarrett Guarantano
Jonathan Kongbo
Tyler Byrd
Marquez Calloway
Marquill Osborne
Daniel Bituli
Ryan Johnson
Carlin Fils-Aime
Alexis Johnson
Trey Smith
Ty Chandler
Maleik Gray
Eric Crosby
Will Ignont

You oddly highlighted several great players here that had great careers. But yes, busts will always occur. Rather it’s academics, injuries, or just poor scouting, those will always happen. Even saban doesn’t hit on 100% or his players. So listing examples of players who’ve failed doesn’t really help your case.

Overall higher rated players have more success than lower rated players. Thats a basic fact.

 

[sjt18]

You oddly highlighted several great players here that had great careers. But yes, busts will always occur. Rather it’s academics, injuries, or just poor scouting, those will always happen. Even saban doesn’t hit on 100% or his players. So listing examples of players who’ve failed doesn’t really help your case.

Well, not if you are being obtuse. Yeah. It makes the case since that's a LOT of players who were supposedly "blue chip". That is a VERY high miss rate and points DIRECTLY to the fact that Jones regardless of recruiting site love did NOT evaluate players well while Saban does... with the recruiting sites "cheating" by rating his players higher.

You seem to think that the recruiting sites do a "great" job of scouting. They don't and that's before you consider that they hedge their "accuracy" by limiting the number of 4/5* grades they hand out.

Overall higher rated players have more success than lower rated players. Thats a basic fact.

Which indicates you either buy the "magic" and miss the slight of hand... or just choose to ignore the LARGE number of successful lower rated players that the recruiting sites BADLY mis-evaluate.

Which "great" players did I highlight? Maybe our definition of "great" is just different. You seem to think "great" is defined by the number of stars a player gets. I think it is how they actually perform and win.

 

[sjt18]

So to be clear you don’t believe Georgia and Bama have created elite teams through their recruiting prowess?

You really... REALLY need to work on reading without applying your bias.

UGA and Bama have talent because Smart and Saban are great at finding, signing, and developing talented players. They DO NOT wait for 247, On3, ESPN, or Rivals to tell them who they should recruit. Almost exactly the opposite. Those "experts" watch to see who the elite recruiters value the most... and use that in their rankings.

But let's flip that. Are you arguing that all of those other teams are failing badly without any relation to players who were not as good as the recruiting sites thought?

Again, you seem to believe a trailing indicator is the leading indicator and vice versa.

 

[Vol8188]

You really... REALLY need to work on reading without applying your bias.

UGA and Bama have talent because Smart and Saban are great at finding, signing, and developing talented players. They DO NOT wait for 247, On3, ESPN, or Rivals to tell them who they should recruit. Almost exactly the opposite. Those "experts" watch to see who the elite recruiters value the most... and use that in their rankings.

But let's flip that. Are you arguing that all of those other teams are failing badly without any relation to players who were not as good as the recruiting sites thought?

No one is claiming they’re waiting on anyone. Lol and no 247 is not simply giving bumps to guys based on their offer list. If that is the case, why can I name numerous 3*s who have signed with Bama, Georgia, oh st, etc?

When you say “all those others” be specific. Which team is failing?

 

[Vol8188]

Well, not if you are being obtuse. Yeah. It makes the case since that's a LOT of players who were supposedly "blue chip". That is a VERY high miss rate and points DIRECTLY to the fact that Jones regardless of recruiting site love did NOT evaluate players well while Saban does... with the recruiting sites "cheating" by rating his players higher.

You seem to think that the recruiting sites do a "great" job of scouting. They don't and that's before you consider that they hedge their "accuracy" by limiting the number of 4/5* grades they hand out.

Which indicates you either buy the "magic" and miss the slight of hand... or just choose to ignore the LARGE number of successful lower rated players that the recruiting sites BADLY mis-evaluate.

Which "great" players did I highlight? Maybe our definition of "great" is just different. You seem to think "great" is defined by the number of stars a player gets. I think it is how they actually perform and win.

Jones was great at recruiting and evaluating. That’s why so many of his guys are in the nfl now. He didn’t fail because of recruiting or evaluating. He failed because of transfers, injuries, and poor coaching.

Limiting the number of 4/5 *s doesn’t “hedge their bets”. They still have not predict the top 250 or more players in the nation. If you think that “hedges their bets” you just really think teams get to hedge theirs by only taking roughly 25 players.

Yes, the process is not perfect. There will always be misses and busts. Heupel has them. Saban has them. And yes, recruiting services have them. That’s why your attempts at cherry picking are pathetic. If you look at the overall numbers 5*s perform better than 4*s, who on average perform better than 3*s. That indicates the process works.

Preston Williams, Phillips, and Richmond. You attempted to pretend they were busts. That’s a joke

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

So to be clear you don’t believe Georgia and Bama have created elite teams through their recruiting prowess?

He can’t accept the fact that the teams with the most 4 and 5* players are the teams that win at the highest level year in and year out. Sjt’s ignorance on this issue is profound.

 

[Vol8188]

He can’t accept the fact that the teams with the most 4 and 5* players are the teams that win at the highest level year in and year out. Sjt’s ignorance on this issue is profound.

It seems he’s developed a conspiracy theory (Bama wins in recruiting because the sites just give their guys all the 5* rankings) as a way of avoiding the simple fact that we currently have an inferior roster. Our coaches have done a great job with that roster, but it has to vastly improve if we won’t to keep winning at a high level.

He seems to think our coach can someone be the one guy to find all these players who’ve slipped through the cracks and win consistently with some rag tag group of Little Giants

 

[KptVFL]

He can’t accept the fact that the teams with the most 4 and 5* players are the teams that win at the highest level year in and year out. Sjt’s ignorance on this issue is profound.

Chicken or egg seems to be the only argument to me.